I don't know if this has been brought up before, but today I just
happened to look at the text of the license that comes with dmd,

The Software is not generally available software. It has not undergone
testing and may contain errors. The Software was not designed to operate
after December 31, 1999. It may be incomplete and it may not function
properly. No support or maintenance is provided with this Software. Do
not install or distribute the Software if
you are not accustomed to using or distributing experimental software.
Do not use this software for life critical applications, or applications
that could cause significant harm or property damage.

Well, with this kind of text, how can we *ever* expect D to be adopted?!
It says right there: don't touch me, I'm dangerous.
I'm talking specifically about this line right here:

Do not install or distribute the Software if you are not accustomed
to using or distributing experimental software.

Well, with this kind of text, how can we *ever* expect D to be adopted?!

Virtually ALL licenses basically say the same thing. It is just legal CYA
stuff.
From the GPL, for example:
THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.
(And it is surrounded by several lines of basically screaming
"NOT MY PROBLEM IF IT SUCKS").
It's nothing to get worked up about.
--
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net

Well, with this kind of text, how can we *ever* expect D to be adopted?!

Virtually ALL licenses basically say the same thing. It is just legal CYA
stuff.
From the GPL, for example:
THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.
(And it is surrounded by several lines of basically screaming
"NOT MY PROBLEM IF IT SUCKS").
It's nothing to get worked up about.

As Michiel pointed out (thanks, btw), it's not just the disclaimer part,
it's the other parts too.
Usually disclaimers say something like: this was developed with the hope
of being useful, but there's no guarantee at all. I'm giving it to you
for free so if anything goes wrong don't sue me. Though the "DONT SUE
ME" part is all caps and legalese, it's pretty obvious that it's just a
standard disclaimer stuff.
Where as this one (dmd's license) plainly says: look, I'm a dangerous
piece of software, don't come near me if you're not wearing your hazard
suit. I'll probably explode in your face.
- not designed to run after 31 december 1999 (wtf?)
- not undergone testing (wtf?)
- very experimental
- incomplete
- probably doesn't work (wtf?)
- not supported
- don't try it unless you know what you're doing
This, supposedly, is the "stable" D1 compiler.

Well, with this kind of text, how can we *ever* expect D to be adopted?!

Virtually ALL licenses basically say the same thing. It is just legal CYA
stuff.
From the GPL, for example:
THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS
WITH YOU.
(And it is surrounded by several lines of basically screaming
"NOT MY PROBLEM IF IT SUCKS").
It's nothing to get worked up about.

Walter has a test suite for DMD, and there's the huge one on (I think)
puremagic.
OH NO! All our programs will stop compiling on Jan 1 2000... wait...
I think the existence of these forums and the bugtracker says otherwise.

Relax. I'm not saying that those things are true, but they ARE in the
license. And I'm saying that if everything in that license were true, those
are the lines I'd worry about.
You've got to admit, it's a pretty strange license.

Those are pretty direct statements about the state of the compiler. The
rest is pretty vague; standard disclaimer stuff.

No, I think they are also of a "you can't sue me if it asplodes" nature.

Walter has a test suite for DMD, and there's the huge one on (I think)
puremagic.
OH NO! All our programs will stop compiling on Jan 1 2000... wait...
I think the existence of these forums and the bugtracker says otherwise.

Relax. I'm not saying that those things are true, but they ARE in the
license. And I'm saying that if everything in that license were true, those
are the lines I'd worry about.
You've got to admit, it's a pretty strange license.

IIRC, Walter said that's the legacy Symantec license and he can't change it.

Walter has a test suite for DMD, and there's the huge one on (I think)
puremagic.
OH NO! All our programs will stop compiling on Jan 1 2000... wait...
I think the existence of these forums and the bugtracker says otherwise.

Relax. I'm not saying that those things are true, but they ARE in the
license. And I'm saying that if everything in that license were true,
those
are the lines I'd worry about.
You've got to admit, it's a pretty strange license.

IIRC, Walter said that's the legacy Symantec license and he can't change
it.

Walter has a test suite for DMD, and there's the huge one on (I think)
puremagic.
OH NO! All our programs will stop compiling on Jan 1 2000... wait...
I think the existence of these forums and the bugtracker says otherwise.

Relax. I'm not saying that those things are true, but they ARE in the
license. And I'm saying that if everything in that license were true,
those
are the lines I'd worry about.
You've got to admit, it's a pretty strange license.

IIRC, Walter said that's the legacy Symantec license and he can't change
it.

Who is this Symantec entity that's preventing D from being truely open
source and forcing Walter to put crap in the license?
Are they the same Symantec at http://www.symantec.com/ ?
Anyway, what portions of the backend are from Symantec?
How feasibly would it be to rewrite that portion as free software (in
the GNU sense)?

That's not my point though.
I think that the official/reference implementation needs to be
completely open-source.

Because I'm bored I am actually replying to this topic. First how "open"
do you like your source?
1. Open as in all code available? (This is where dmd is now)
2. Open as in gpl? Can derive more work from it if the source code is
still available in the derived work. (This is where dmd front end is.
Possible to re write backend and that is what ldc has done)
3. Open as in bsd license? Can derive work from it close up the new
stuff and sell it. (llvm is actually ncsa license and dang is an attempt
to make a D parser for it in the similar style to what clang did for C/C++)
Once you have decided on your license you can then proceed to choosing
what parts of what project to re write or maybe you just like starting
from scratch anyway.
Finally get the project going stable for a long time then ask for it to
be considered as the reference implementation. You can't just drop dmd's
existence / declare no such reference implementation while everyone runs
around hurrying to build the completely open one.

That's not my point though.
I think that the official/reference implementation needs to be
completely open-source.

Because I'm bored I am actually replying to this topic. First how "open"
do you like your source?
1. Open as in all code available? (This is where dmd is now)
2. Open as in gpl? Can derive more work from it if the source code is
still available in the derived work. (This is where dmd front end is.
Possible to re write backend and that is what ldc has done)
3. Open as in bsd license? Can derive work from it close up the new
stuff and sell it. (llvm is actually ncsa license and dang is an attempt
to make a D parser for it in the similar style to what clang did for C/C++)
Once you have decided on your license you can then proceed to choosing
what parts of what project to re write or maybe you just like starting
from scratch anyway.
Finally get the project going stable for a long time then ask for it to
be considered as the reference implementation. You can't just drop dmd's
existence / declare no such reference implementation while everyone runs
around hurrying to build the completely open one.